Dunkirk

"Dunkirk," Christopher Nolan's latest biographical film, opened this weekend, polarizing audiences on their opinions. Critics are raving about this summer war movie, however I've heard countless attendees roll their eyes at the reviews, finding the film dreadful. I've always been a fan of Nolan's work ("The Dark Knight," "Inception," "The Prestige) so "Dunkirk" was a natural addition to my ongoing watch list. I've also always been drawn to period films, especially ones centered around war. I was initially surprised that Nolan took on this project, as none of his past films have been centered around a true historical event. When the trailer was launched, I thought it looked pretty good but thought it wouldn't be anything spectacular. Seeing the film today, however, I was very pleasantly surprised with the movie.

The film's plot is centered around three different storylines- one for the air force, one for the military, and one for the navy. This in itself is brilliantly done because these stories switch off seamlessly, yet depict different spans of time. While the plot wasn't exceptionally complex, the attention time frames made this film unlike any other. The events on the beach take place over a week, the events in the sea span a day, and the events in the sky span only one hour. As the tension in the film builds, there are shorter cuts between the different storylines, heightening the excitement of the film. Most war films I've seen tend to fixate on a few specific characters, draw a storyline around them, and create an emotional investment in their outcomes. In "Dunkirk" the audience is introduced to many characters. While some have more screen time than others, the decision to incorporate many characters allows for the audience to get a better sense of just how many lives were effected by Dunkirk itself, let alone World War II. I definitely don't think "Dunkirk" was the most emotionally devastating war movie I've ever seen (in fact I may have found it slightly surprisingly unemotional) I think the immense attention to detail makes up for that. It is evident throughout the entirety of the film that every little detail was thoroughly thought through. For example, Nolan wanted to use as little CGI as possible, so he used real naval destroyers instead.

While I don't think there were necessarily any standout performances from the actors, I thought everyone performed well. Nolan intentionally cast a lot of young, relatively unknown (with the exception of Harry Styles) actors because soldiers at Dunkirk tended to be young and inexperienced. There is very little dialogue in the film, yet the audience can sense the feelings of isolation and despair, demonstrating strong performances. It was a great experience to watch this film in the theater. It is action packed and made for a big screen. It is also so beautiful- from the cinematography to the coloring, and everything in between. It reached new levels of complexity and technique, and will likely be the film to most impress me this summer. See it in the theaters while you can, it is worthy of the theater experience!

The Actor Profile Series: Robert De Niro

In typical fashion, I give feedback on particular films in my blogs. However, I think it's also critical to appreciate the work of the people starring in these films. These are the people that bring life to the characters written on paper. They are the ones that invite an audience to join them in a different world for a couple of hours. They allow strangers across the world to form emotional connections to their characters. That being said, actors do not always do their work effectively. But there are some that truly stand out.

The first edition of my actor profile series is dedicated to the one, the only, a Mr. Robert De Niro. It is no secret that Martin Scorsese is one of my all-time favorite directors, but where would he be without his leading man De Niro? (Fun fact, the honest answer is not good- De Niro convinced Scorsese to kick his drug addiction by bringing him a new movie idea- "Raging Bull- when he was at his lowest). De Niro is a New York man through and through, which shows, since his works primarily takes place in NYC. He left traditional school at the age of 16 to attend an acting school.  Though I wish with all my heart I could say I've seen every De Niro film, this is no easy task, considering the man has credit in over 100 films. However, there are some standout De Niro films that truly showcase his sheer talent:

The first on the list is the 1973 Scorsese classic, "Mean Streets".

In this film, we meet De Niro as mobster Johnny Boy, who is trying to move up the mafia ladder in New York. This movie is brilliantly done- it goes so much deeper than simply being a crime film about gangsters. It showcases a major pressure placed on people by the Catholic church- the notion of sin. In this time period, many people were placed under a great burden, continuously worrying about sinning, which would result in an eternity in flames- sounds like enough to drive anyone crazy. The eternal flames of hell are symbolically apparent throughout the entirety of the film as the color red. All scenes shot in the bar have a clear red lighting, signifying guilt. The tone of the movie is clear straight from the beginning, where we hear a voiceover from Scorsese say "You don’t make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. All the rest is BS and you know it.” While De Niro does not play the main character of the film, he gives an outstanding performance as an incautious hustler who is always in debt. He's a jokester in the film, blissfully ignoring the potential consequences of sin that haunt the other characters. The first action his character performs is blowing up a mailbox. Moviegoers have grown accustomed to big-budget gangster films from high-up mobsters, so it was refreshing to see a gangster movie that seems more grounded in reality. It is evident even in this early film that De Niro commits himself to fully embracing his role. His complete transformations are even more evident when you view multiple De Niro films, particularly in his collaborations with Scorsese. His character, Johnny Boy, works in great juxtaposition to Harvey Keitel as the lead. Honestly, I'd be much less invested in this movie if it weren't for De Niro's performance. He gives a great spirit to the film. This movie is exceptionally done but certainly feels dated- I can certainly imagine it packing a punch when it was first released. It is definitely the springboard into the wonders of De Niro's career. 

Next up is Taxi Driver, one of my all-time favorite films. This is also my favorite role for De Niro. In this movie De Niro stars as Travis Bickle, a psychotic (you guessed it-) taxi driver. Bickle is a Vietnam veteran turned paranoid insomniac, and this film brilliantly shows the mental effects war had on veterans. We see his madness rise along with the temperature in this 1970s New York summer.  Travis frequents Times Square and 42nd Street to observe the hookers, pimps, and other "street freaks" that he becomes fixated on. In an effort not to spoil the film, I'll just say that De Niro's performance allows for a psychological buildup that leads to an urban nightmare. De Niro casts a dark smile into the camera, not dislike Heath Ledger's expressions as the Joker in "The Dark Knight". Scorsese has a knack for subtly showcasing emotions, and this is most evident in the film "Taxi Driver". The emotional buildup in De Niro's character is one of the best collaborations between Scorsese and De Niro. De Niro's iconic line in the film is "You talkin' to me?"- who would've guessed that this was improvised! If that doesn't demonstrate De Niro's brilliance I don't know what will. This movie stands the test of time and shows excellence in every division. De Niro's performance raises its mastery to a new level.

Since I was a kid I've always had an affinity for boxing films, oddly enough. Combine De Niro, Scorsese, and boxing, and I'm sold. "Raging Bull", while not commercially successful upon its release, goes down as a classic in the books. This 1980 film depicts the true story of middleweight boxer Jake LaMotta. Once again, beneath a fabulous plot Scorsese skillfully portrays the emotional and psychological confusion of his character. Scorsese is so gifted, but I'll save that analysis for another time. If there is one word to describe De Niro as LaMotta, it would be tumultuous, or, well, raging. The film's title serves as a double entendre, crediting LaMotta's boxing name, as well as the emotional aggression that built up inside him throughout his career. There are many parallels between "Raging Bull" and "Taxi Driver".  La Motta's rage is obviously expressed in the boxing ring, but is most evident through his jealousy surrounding his wife. LaMotta convinces himself that his wife is cheating on him, although there is no evidence demonstrating so. There are so many great components of the film that I can analyze, such as the effects and tactics used to film the fight scenes, but once again, it is De Niro's performance that blows this film out of the water. De Niro gained a significant amount of weight to portray the older LaMotta- so much so that Scorsese forced him to stop since he was concerned about his health. Time and time again, De Niro commits himself to his role, changing his entire mental processes during filming. This film, in classical Scorsese fashion, takes one subject and uses it as a backdrop to brilliantly expose the mental breakdown of the lead. I'd suggest a back-to-back "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" viewing for optimal Scorsese-De Niro glory.

The next film is "The Deer Hunter" from 1978. This provided a unique role for De Niro- no Scorsese, no New York, no gangs. However, once again we see the emotional turmoil of his character unravel before our eyes. This film also demonstrates the emotional impact of the Vietnam War. De Niro plays Michael, who leaves his job at a steel mill to serve in the war. He and his two friends are often seen playing Russian Roulette, which serves as the ultimate symbol of the film. It represents the suddenness of US involvement in the Vietnam war, and the randomness of the epic violence. De Niro is the leading man, ushering his friends through the horrific scenes they find themselves in in Vietnam. The true emotional impact is evident when De Niro goes home, and has great difficulty being welcomed as a war hero. I do not think this is the MOST spectacular performance of De Niro's career, however De Niro still demonstrates his mastery of subtleties. I can only imagine the reactions people had when this film was initially released- like salt in an open wound.

Finally, we'll look at De Niro in a classic role- a Scorsese-crafted mobster. "Goodfellas," from 1990, is a classic crime film that I always come back to. This is my favorite, and in my opinion the best, of all crime movies I've come across. This movie really highlights the finesse of mob life in New York. In the past, we've seen De Niro embrace gritty lower-level mobsters. This grit is shined up like a new penny. This movie tells the true story of mobster and FBI informant Henry Hill. De Niro plays his mentor, Jimmy. While he doesn't have the leading role, his character adds a nice flavor to the film. In the past, we've seen De Niro's mobster films project guilt ("Mean Streets"), but "Goodfellas" sheds a new light on mob life. Rather than Catholic guilt, the sin of this film is betrayal. Its about the emphasis and impact of loyalty in gangs. It shows the complete and utter absorption into mob life. I watched this film immediately after viewing "Mean Streets" and the juxtaposition baffled me. Before going into it, I expected to watch essentially the same film made 20 years apart. The incredible difference in theme once again demonstrates the brilliance of Scorsese, and well as the acting ability of De Niro.

Long live the De Niro and Scorsese brotherhood.

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

Ah, April- one of the worst movie months of the year! It's the weird in-between of post-Oscar season, pre-summer blockbuster season. But don't despair, because platforms like HBO are here to tide us over! This past weekend, highly-anticipated "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" was released, starring Oprah Winfrey. This book spent years on the New York Times bestseller list. I remember seeing people reading it in class in high school. I remember my mom reading it years back. Despite all the hype, I was scared off by the science lingo and avoided reading it. However, there was a lot of hype around the HBO release of this film, so I thought it'd be worth the watch.

As previously mentioned, this film was based off of the book by the same title written by Rebecca Skloot. I generally have a rule that I can't watch a movie based off of the book without reading the book first, but I made an exception this time. This choice is somewhat problematic, as I cannot reflect on the accuracy of the portrayal or provide any effective commentary regarding that translation. However I can absolutely state that I was deeply moved by this film, specifically by Oprah's performance.

Before commenting on the specifics of the film, I'll give a brief summary. The movie tells the story of Henrietta Lacks, a young African American woman who died of cervical cancer in the 1950s. A clump of cells extracted from her body have since changed the face of medicine- her cells were the first to never die, making them perfect subjects for scientific research. Her cells have made countless contributions in the scientific community. "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" was a revolutionary book when it came out- there have been countless documentations of "HeLa," the immortalized cells, but there had been no information released about Henrietta's life or family. The film uncovers Skloot's process towards writing the book, and identified the complexities of Henrietta's family members.

Oprah plays Henrietta's daughter, Deborah, who has been pushed to the sidelines for decades by journalists inquiring about her mothers cells. Oprah's performance, in my opinion, was the aspect of the film that allowed it to achieve the status as a great film rather than a good film. This is a complex storyline condensed into under an hour and a half film, which is problematic. Despite that issue, Oprah's performance stands out and leaves a strong emotional impact on the viewer. It is evident over the course of the film that Deborah suffers from emotional and physical ailments. Oprah did an outstanding job showcasing the severe emotional toll her mother's death took on her life. I honestly got teary-eyed at points of her emotional breakdown. She effectively demonstrated the hefty emotional weight Deborah's been carrying with her for decades.

The movie undertook many themes considering it was only 92 minutes long- these ranged from family history to race discrimination and medical ethics. This was certainly ambitious, and I think if the film had been longer it could have more deeply unpacked these issues. That being said, although it was slightly overambitious considering the time frame, I think these were presented pretty well. It would certainly be interesting to read the book having seen the film to see how it goes into further detail on these issues. The subject matter was exceptionally interesting- I think I wouldn't have been nearly invested if the emotional family struggles hadn't been intwined with the scientific aspects of the story. Certainly worth the watch!

Hacksaw Ridge

I'm always a sucker for a great historical drama, so I was really excited to see "Hacksaw Ridge," one of this year's Best Picture nominees. I was amazed that Andrew Garfield was able to take on two major lead roles in 2016- the other role was the lead in Scorsese's "Silence," another astounding film that I don't think received enough credit. I used to write off Andrew Garfield as simply an okay actor. He gave a pretty good performance in "The Social Network," but it didn't leave a strong impression. He then got on my bad side when starring in "The Amazing Spider-Man," because no one does Spider-Man like Tobey Maguire. That being said, 2016 was the year of Andrew Garfield. I now have so much respect for him as an actor, as he gave an incredible performance starring in two of this year's biggest films.

"Hacksaw Ridge" told the true story of Desmond Doss, a WWII medic that refused to hold a gun let alone kill another man in war due to his faith. This film was directed by Mel Gibson, which frankly deterred many people from seeing the film. People's strong negative reaction to a film directed by Gibson truly demonstrates the importance of maintaining a positive reputation in Hollywood. Gibson is known for his anti-Semitic comments as well as alleged domestic abuse- these were bound to discourage many people from seeing the film. Believe me, I am equally horrified by Mel Gibson, but I am a strong advocate for separating work from personal life.

Desmond Doss, played by Garfield, was a Virginian Seventh Day Adventist who enlists in the army as a medic. His religious beliefs make him a very distinct WWII medic, however- he does not believe killing a man is ever okay, even in a time of war. Due to his strong beliefs, he refuses to even hold a gun let alone use one. His peers strongly react negatively to this seemingly odd behavior, making it very difficult for him to feel accepted in the army. I don't want to give away everything that happens in "Hacksaw Ridge," but essentially the film tells a compelling true story about a hero. There's something deeply moving in Garfield's portrayal of deeply spiritual Doss, a raw tenderness that is uncommonly found in films depicting war. Garfield played a priest in "Silence," so it was really fascinating to see him depict two very different characters that still had a common thread of spirituality.

Over all, I really enjoyed "Hacksaw Ridge." I don't think it'll win Best Picture, and I don't think it should. Yet, it's still a movie worth watching. The story, despite being about war, will lift your spirits. You're guaranteed to be amazed by Andrew Garfield's performance.

La La Land

Ah, "La La Land." The movie everyone loves to love. This movie, written and directed by Damien Chazelle, starred Ryan Gosling as Sebastian, a struggling jazz musician, and Emma Stone, an aspiring actress named Mia. Honestly, I have pretty mixed feelings about "La La Land." When I initially heard that Ryan Gosling was starring in a movie paying homage to traditional Hollywood, I jumped for joy. That being said, my initial love for the film has significantly diminished. I could provide commentary on what I thought of the performances, direction, cinematography, and other aspects of film that I traditionally touch on in my blogs, however I think it is much more important to express my frustration towards the reaction to "La La Land."

Don't get me wrong, I really liked "La La Land." I think it was a really exceptionally crafted movie and had a lot of fun watching it. However, I strongly take issue to the extreme positive reaction it received from critics, particularly in regards to award nominations. People have reacted to "La La Land" as if it is this novel idea to film- there is nothing original about musicals, in fact the intention of the film was to pay homage to musicals of the 1950s. "La La Land" is up for fourteen Oscars- that's almost unheard of. While I think "La La Land" was a strong film, I most certainly think that nearly every other Best Picture nominee is more worthy of a win. I genuinely think a lot of damage can be done if "La La Land" wins Best Picture this year. A lot of progress has been made following #OscarsSoWhite- formally beginning two years ago (although this has evidently been an ongoing issue). There's certainly been an increase in diversity in nominations. 7 minority actors were nominated for their performances this year. This improvement is significantly noteworthy- I distinctly remember being horrified two years ago that David Oyelowo wasn't nominated for his portrayal of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Ava DuVernay's "Selma." Although it is great that nominations for Oscars this year are more diverse, there is a strong likelihood that "La La Land," featuring a nearly all-white cast (with the exception of John Legend, playing a musician who in fact breaks away from traditional jazz), will sweep at the Oscars this year.

It was easy for critics to be charmed by "La La Land." It is a love letter to Los Angeles and the world of entertainment. I think there are several aspects of "La La Land" that are deeply flawed. For instance, Gosling's character, Sebastian, plays a jazz musician hoping to open his own jazz club. He spends much of the film explaining jazz to Emma Stone's character. It is important to recognize that jazz is rooted in African American culture. Its fundamental roots tie into oppression of black people. I understand the importance of reintroducing jazz into mainstream society, and think this film made a great effort to do so. My guess is, though, that jazz enthusiasts wouldn't necessarily think of this film as a progression in showcasing jazz. Jazz is a raw, emotional art form, and "La La Land" didn't attach much significant emotion to the music specifically. I think there could have been changes made to the film that could have made it so much more meaningful. Imagine if Sebastian, or even Emma Stone's character, Mia, was portrayed by a black actor. I'm really impressed that Gosling learned how to play great jazz piano music for this film, but I would have liked to see a relatively unknown black actor, perhaps one with an actual background in jazz, portray this character. We already see the story of white people succeeding in Hollywood time and time again. It would be revolutionary to create a production such as "La La Land" demonstrating a minority figure struggling and succeeding to make it in a predominately white industry. Instead, we see two exceptionally narcissistic white leads leaving behind true love to further their careers.

I do recognize that "La La Land" is a great film despite these flaws. I really didn't want to reiterate the million reviews already posted raving over it. I wanted to challenge the major issues that aren't getting talked about as much. "La La Land" serves to emphasize white favoritism in Hollywood. I just hope the Academy can recognize the critical and timely importance of the other best picture contenders. "Manchester by the Sea" tells a story of contrition. "Moonlight" tells a story of identity. "Lion" tells a story of raw hope. These themes, among others, have much more gravity and importance than the superficial themes of ambition in "La La Land." It's definitely a fun film worth seeing, but I do not think it's entirely worthy of the high praise it's receiving.

Moonlight

Personally, I am ecstatic about the success of "Moonlight". With the Academy Awards less than a week away, I still cannot believe that "Moonlight" has 8 nominations. I saw this film upon its initial release in the fall, and am kicking myself for not writing a review immediately after seeing it. That being said, it is a true testament to the wonder of this film that I am still so touched by the story that unfolded before my eyes so many months ago.

"Moonlight," directed by Barry Jenkins, tells the heartbreaking story of a young African American man's search for himself over three parts. Over the course of two hours, the audience sees main character Chiron experience agony, joy, pain sorrow, love, and nearly everything in between. Chiron is a black, gay man that continuously struggled with his sense of identity. This movie emphasizes the human struggle of finding one's identity. The true gift this film delivers to the audience is a deeply focused story on one boy's life, that ultimately delved into broader themes of human identity. Some of the other themes addressed in this film are masculinity, sexuality, and family. The amount of detail that went into this film continuously astounds me. This was a small budget film, costing around $5 million (as a point of comparison, Spider-Man 2 cost $200 million). Every single shot, every single line of dialogue, every single note in the soundtrack played a vital role to the film's overall success.

As previously mentioned, the film is divided into three parts, "Little," "Chiron," and "Black". These names serve as labels Chiron identified with throughout his life. In the first stage of the film, the audience meets a young Chiron hiding in a strange apartment from kids looking to beat him up. He was found by drug dealer Juan, played by Mahershala Ali. This moment marked the start of a relationship between the two, where Juan served as a father figure to young Chiron. The plot of the film gets more intertwined when we learn that Chiron's mother is a drug addict- in fact, her dealer is Juan. While this aspect of the film became more messy later on, Chiron's relationship with Juan became an integral part of his development as a child. Next, the film focused on Chiron as a teenager. It is even more evident at this point in the film that Chiron cannot seek any sort of emotional support from his family. Chiron then formed a relationship with a new friend, Kevin. His sexual confusion is heightened in the relationship between these characters- a confusion that will burden Chiron for a long time to come. This relationship will reappear with a larger significance in the third section of the film. Towards the end, the film focused in on the shift in Chiron and Kevin's relationship. As Chiron grew up, he grasped on to the aspects of masculinity that surrounded him in his world. This cloak of masculinity came as a surprise to Kevin when he began to know Chiron again. Through Kevin's reaction, it became apparent to Chiron that this front further complicated his self-identification. It is through Kevin's relationships with others that we are able to witness the complexities of self-identification. Chiron is in the midst of self-discovery throughout the entirety of the film, presenting the potential idea to the audience that people are forever changing and continuously working towards finding their true selves. While this colossal idea is presented to the audience, the message is in no way preachy. This is magically executed, as the entire story is focused around the way Chiron shifts his behaviors in efforts of finding himself, and allows room for the audience to find the message on their own.

The acting in this movie is a major part of what makes "Moonlight" a success. It was a risky move to break the film into three stages of one character's life. When casting three actors as the lead, filmmakers have to feel confident that three different people can portray the same character. These actors are not only believable as the same character, but while doing so they demonstrated the growth of a character. The acting in "Moonlight" was remarkable across the board. The portrayal of Juan by Mahershala Ali has my vote for Best Supporting Actor. Naomie Harris, who played Chiron's mother, also delivered a powerful performance. It comes as no surprise to me that Ali and Harris are contenders for Best Supporting Actor/Actress.

In addition to the acting, I was also blown away by the cinematography. In an interview I read, the cinematographer, James Laxton, wanted to make the film look "dreamlike" as opposed to looking like a documentary. He believes that it is common for many social issue indie movies to try to take that approach, and wanted to break off from that. His lighting designs brought out multiple dimensions of color from the actors' faces. The bold colors in this film are not only evident in the actor's faces, but in the bright Miami scenery as well. Vibrant palm trees in the background add a new dimension to the dreamlike image Laxton sought. I don't personally know much about lighting and methods used in cinematography, but I do know that the cinematography left a strong impression on me.

Another strong component contributing to the wonder of "Moonlight" was the soundtrack. I tend to neglect soundtracks in my movie reviews, but I think "Moonlight"'s soundtrack really added a new dimension to the film. Listening to the soundtrack, an audience can hear Chiron's sensitivity and tenderness. It may come to a surprise to some that "Moonlight"'s soundtrack consists of classical music. People tend to associate black youth with rap and hip hop, therefore it was a very deliberate decision to incorporate classical piano into the film. It plays into Chiron's confusion about masculinity.

As a whole, I feel as if people gravitate towards "easy" movies. The "feel-good" movies. I've heard from several people who've only seen "La La Land" out of all the nominations for best picture this year- "Oh who wants to see a sad movie? La La Land has music, that sounds fun!" People like to forget about the realities of the struggles people face in their lives. People go to the movies for an escape, and a lot of the time they only want to escape to a happy place. I believe, however, that there is so much more beauty in struggle.

Arrival

I usually avoid sci-fi movies like the plague. I am still scarred from my childhood viewing of E.T.- that alien is scary and I will never understand how this movie is suitable for full grown adults let alone children, but that's another story. There is always the occasional best picture nominee that I am less than thrilled to see, and this year that movie was "Arrival".

"Arrival", directed by Denis Villeneuve, told the story of mysterious alien spacecrafts touching down on various points on Earth. The main character, Dr. Louise Banks, is played by Amy Adams. The other lead characters were played by Jeremy Renner and Forest Whitaker. To be frank, throughout maybe 85% of my viewing experience I was less than impressed with "Arrival". That being said, the ending made the entire movie worth it. I don't want to spoil the ending, but once you know what happens the end, the first thing you'll want to do is rewatch the entire movie knowing what you now know.

In addition to the incredible ending, I also immensely appreciated how real this science fiction film felt. To my surprise, "Arrival" was a very emotional film. Throughout the plot of alien intruders, emotional aspects of Dr. Banks's life are weaved in. "Arrival" differed from many science fiction films in existence. It has a more hopeful tone, as opposed to the typical "end of the world" depiction frequently seen in science fiction movies. The aspect of capturing a glimpse of humanity in science fiction movies has been a recent development (previously seen in movies such as "Interstellar" or "Gravity") which I personally think provides greater depth and meaning to the genre as a whole. These films make us question our place as humans in the greater context of the universe. 

More than science and aliens, this movie was actually about communication and the art of language. In the film, we see a great juxtaposition of Amy Adams's portrayal of a linguistic specialist and Jeremy Renner's portrayal of a physicist. The emphasis on language as opposed to science may have been a personal bonus to me, someone who avoids science at all costs, but in general this reinterpretation of a science fiction film showcased the depth possibility in the world of film. I was impressed by the use of communication through language and not action in a science film.

I also greatly appreciated that the hero of the movie was in fact a heroine. Dr. Banks served as the translator in the film, working towards decoding the messages the aliens were delivering to Earth. The heroine created in this movie differed in many ways from ones we've seen in films previously. Amy Adams's character is soft spoken, logical, and methodical. It was great to see a female character exhibit her true characteristics in a manner that led to a breakthrough. Amy Adams was a wonder in this role. She is such a versatile actress, and this movie allowed her to showcase that even more. She delivers a performance that is simultaneously stoic, thoughtful, and sensitive. Dr. Banks worked towards learning what these aliens, the Heptapods, wanted, and did so in a manner that was true to herself, regardless of her objecting colleagues. Despite the continuing chaos surrounding her, Dr. Banks stuck to her guns and continued to work through the madness in order to get the answer she wanted- the answer that humanity needed. The subtleties of Amy Adams's character are truly the driving force of this film.  

Another aspect that really surprised me was the smoothness and beauty of the cinematography. I always associate science fiction films with insane CGI depicting crumbling buildings and terrifying aliens. The cinematography in this film however felt pure. It had a much more natural feel to it than traditional science fiction cinematography, which was another very pleasant surprise. 

Regardless of whether or not you like science fiction films, the shock value of the final scene in combination with the performance delivered by Amy Adams will truly make your viewing experience worth it.